And my response every single time has been that the huge difference there is that the other 50% of the stake would be going directly to tons of different creators that way, thus decentralizing Hive more. This part never seems to have a response besides "the DHF is decentralized," which is pretty laughable.
Posts were always intended as a way to fund work done for Hive (marketing, software development work, etc). The DHF is another way. The DHF delivers a fixed inflationary amount and gets around some fundament problems associated with funding ongoing work, but posts allow stakeholders to allocate more. I also routinely vote up posts by devs for the work they do, but I'm well aware that the benefits of their work tend to far exceed the amount they can make that way.
Right now, I believe that it makes sense to focus on building more funds for marketing and dev work right now. This could also be done via changes to the base inflation rates in a hardfork, but using posts allows for more flexible voting by the stakeholders, without requiring code changes and a hardfork, and it allows direct voting by stakeholders versus delegated voting via witnesses. You seem to think there is something sacred about the current hardcoded ratios for rewards, but that's just not the case. They were arbitrary numbers almost pulled out of a hat, but that was never a real problem for Hive, because post voting allows for more flexibility about where the rewards go, based on current conditions.
Also, as I have been clear from the beginning if you've read my early posts, I've never considered social media posts to be the primary purpose of Hive. It is a cool aspect, but I believe Hive has a much more useful future than just that.
As a side note, I believe content creators will actually earn more in the long run by funding more marketing and dev efforts, rather than just upvoting the current relatively small number of content creators, because we'll end up with a more valuable token to distribute.
The posts have had rewards declined, or in this case 100% burnt.
I didn't actually notice that, as hive.blog doesn't show it AFAICT. Another case where a little more dev work would be useful.
I'm not getting anything out of this.
Unfortunately, neither is the blockchain or the stakeholders. You may scare away some people who've just joined Hive and don't know who to believe, but are predisposed to believe the guy who claims the other guys are behaving badly. Beyond that, I suspect it is a wash.
It's actually the perceived and very real oligarchy this system creates and the fact that 1 downvote can not only wipe out the will of many, but essentially limit the exposure of the content that scares away many.
An equivalent is a Twitter or Facebook shadowban, which is viewed by many to be the same difference as a collapsed post or comment(I've never seen such a post trend, have you?). If this type of post scares off potential users, then it's because they don't agree with the reality.
I'm on many blockchain platforms populated mostly by those who don't like steem or hive specifically because of what I mention in the 1st paragraph. That's a lot of ex, but mostly potential users that have been lost, because the same web2 crap happens here, just in a slightly different way.
Instead of accepting this, we as one of the first cutting edge Web3 platforms should be trying to find a solution to the problem. Unfortunately, those who benefit most, like yourself and the other ideological downvoters, tend to see everything as just fine.
The fact is, it's no different than the US Congress continuing to work for themselves, instead of the people. Perceived or not by those who can institute solutions, like yourself, it affects more users than you know. This in effect affects the growth of the platform.
Previously, upvotes were used for funding things.
The DHF was created to be the mechanism that now is supposed to be used to funds things.
Now we have the DHF. If things need funded it should go through the DHF.
People can still upvote whatever they want.
The DHF is already funding the HBD Stabilzer for 67,000 HBD a day. Upvoting HBD Funder comments only looks to bring in 10k HBD a day(50/50 split between the upvoters and HBD Funder). So HBD Funder needs 5k more USD a day.
The request should be changed to 72,000 HBD a day.
The upvoters who were upvoting HBD Funder can now go and upvote people who write posts instead of upvoting a comment to fund something(because that's what the DHF is for).
Again, I will ask the question that so far has not receieved a satisfactory answer, why not increase the HBD Funder proposal to 72,000 HBD/day? I would vote for that and most people probably would too.
That is just your opinion. There was never any claim when the DHF was created that posts could no longer be used to fund develop. In fact, some stakeholders like transisto believe that ONLY posts should be used to develop software and for makreting efforts. Personally, I think both have their uses.
And again, I will answer the question: because I want to increase the amount of funding available in the DHF for future development. Increasing the HBD funder proposal will not achieve the same effect to the same degree.
Yes, that's why I said should though, I am not saying it "has to". From a design and system perspective that is what it is for.
I can see a problem with this type of thing in that people with lots of money coming into Hive, or people who have lots of money currently, just upvoting it for easy APR. There is always the downvote as a check/balance to keep someone like Haejin or Rancho Relaxo doing that(though they seem to upvote random things on Trending to get around being downvoted in return).
I can see both sides to this, so I am not one way or the other in particular on that issue. I've said that we need to have more funding for Hive/marketing so that is always good, building the ecosystem is good. I don't particularly see the need for a stablecoin made in the way HBD is made, as I am mainly in the Ethereum camp and am pro DAI and other stablecoins. As things progress forward with Dexes and cheaper fees I can see Ethereum/Polygon/BSC having options that are more useful for Hive than HBD. I've separately written a different comment before on how Hive could be distributed for DHF proposals and sold at market prices in other stable coins that are locked in contracts(someone has to write this obviously) instead of having HBD as the funding curency for the DHF. This would have the added benefit of more Hive getting into the hands of minnows/new people joining as the price point would be pushed down with the consistent downward pressue.
For consistency I would like to see everyone trying to encourage all funding stuff to go to the DHF, instead of upvoting comments. The large upvotes on the comments doesn't exactly go against POB, because POB is a very general and encompassing term. I would say it WOULD go against POB if the comments were purely spam and didn't help the ecosystem in any way, but the HBD Funder does help the ecosystem. It's in a sort of weird grey area in my mind, but I wouldn't downvote the HBD Funder comments myself, that's just my view.
I don't see any risk of it being upvoted just for easy APR. As I mentioned elsewhere, I could achieve the same or better "easy APR" by randomly following a voting trail (something I believe a lot of large stakeholders do, because it gets hard to distribute rewards from a large stake effectively once your stake gets too large). As it is, my APR for curation rewards is a little smaller than if I followed a trail, but I consider it worth it because I'm a strong believer in building up more funding for future marketing and development.
The mechanism that Hive lacks right now is a way for stakeholders to dynamically vote for how inflation is directed. Those numbers are currently hardcoded and can only be changed by a hardfork. A long time ago, @smooth suggested we have a mechanism that allowed for this, and I've always liked that idea, but like all changes it would require more work and testing and could result in unexpected problems. I've always considered voting for posts and comments that fund marketing and development as a good compromise on that idea, because it doesn't require code changes.
I spoke with Smooth about this question of dynamic inflation pools only a few days ago at some length. He said he still thought it was a good idea but that he didn't think any decision makers in Hive were interested in it. I put a strong case for implementing something that regulates the public image of the reward pool on Hive and ensures that percentages allotted to each category of reward are adhered to. People look at investment trackers to identify projects to put funds into and they often list the percentages that Hive pays to witnesses, the reward pool and the DHF. If potential new investors look at those percentages, decide they like them but then come here and find out that the reality is quite different - with developers syphoning funds from author rewards into developer rewards - many will just drop hive into the 'scam' bucket that they are primed to do with all projects they investigate because so many really are scammy.
Overcoming the negative PR accrued by Hive due to Steem and other reasons is going to require intense focus on every single 'small' opportunity to tick all the boxes of people who check Hive out. I have a hell of a time getting anyone new to come from web 2.0 to Hive at the moment.. It was similar with Steem, but actually even harder with Hive. As a marketer, I will say clearly here that no stone can be left unturned when dealing with these issues.